WITS AMD Appeal

The Federation for a Sustainable Environment has given notice of appeal to the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development.

Extracts from the notice follow:

Underground water was seen by the mining industry as a nuisance which had to be pumped out as quickly and cheaply as possible from the mining areas in order to mine the mineral reserves. What seems logical is the realization that if water was present prior to mining it would also be present after mining when pumping ceases, that is, when pre-mining flow patterns and volumes are restored. This decanting and potential decanting of water from mining areas within the Witwatersrand area have been contemplated since the late 1950’s.

The term “emergency” is not appropriate. This situation has been foreseen for decades, The current situation is the consequence of the failure of the relevant authorities to act.

The West Rand Basin has been decanting since 2002 and untreated AMD and partially treated water, as a result of the neutralization process, have been and will be flowing into the Tweelopie Spruit. The historical, current and long term future impacts on the receiving environment have been and will be devastating.

The Zwartkrans compartment has sulphate concentrations higher than what would be expected from a dolomitic aquifer. The accumulative impacts of the last decade of significant higher volumes of AMD – both untreated and partially treated – must be assessed.

Even though the AMD is now treated and the sulphate concentration in the water recharging the Zwartkrans aquifer has been lowered from ~4 500 to ~2 500 mg/l, it cannot be assumed that this alone will contribute towards a reduction in sulphate concentration in this aquifer. It merely implies that the rate of rise in sulphate concentration will decrease, but it will continue to rise until the sulphate concentration reaches an equilibrium.

There is a significant problem....a consequence of the relevant authorities’ failure to take timeous actions and implement measures to protect the receiving environment and the water users and ecology that depend on it from the pollution.

The current approach of partially treating water by means of neutralisation and not desalination has been actuated by the recommendations of the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Acid Mine Drainage.

It is evident... that the impacts and consequences of the AMD have been known for many years and the Inter-Ministerial Report, published in December, 2010, had given ample time to the relevant authorities to structure a formal process of public engagement and planning in order to obviate a pending disaster as is the case now. The allegation by the DWA and the TCTA that insufficient time was available to do a normal EIA study and process is simply does not have validity. If this process had continued, notwithstanding the delays, the first background information document could have been submitted to the public at the end of 2011. It follows hence that, if this was the case, all of the necessary legislative processes could have been completed.

We conclude that the Trans Caledon Tunnel Authority (TCTA) and the Department of Water Affairs (DWA) were never interested in an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process that would have drawn the public’s attention to the historical pollution that had already taken place, the consequences of that pollution, the need to not only partially treat the water but also desalinate and the apportionment of liability. There can be no justification for the delays in time that had taken place and the above parties’ refusal to investigate and assess, inter alia, the comparative benefits and costs of desalination vs partial treatment neutralization). This is directly related to the said parties’ apprehension in fully confronting the issue. This, we believe, stems from their reluctance to implement the polluter pays principle and to hold the mining industry responsible for the pollution that has occurred and will occur. The polluter pays principle is an intrinsic part the National Environmental Management Act (No 107 of 1998) (NEMA)5.

News on Legislation

Professional registration for Environmental Assessment Practitioners required within 2 years of the appointment of a Registration Authority
Environmental Affairs Minister Edna Molewa has signed into law regulations pertaining to the appointment of a registration authority that will be responsible for the registration of environmental assessment practitioners.

For most of its history, the mining industry in South Africa has not been subjected to comprehensive environmental regulation.
In recent years, however, this has changed significantly and the industry is now required to comply with a complex web of mining and environmental policy and legislation. This chapter outlines the most relevant legislation and policy documents that govern sustainable mining in South Africa.
Download the document here (82kb)

The hazardous mining by-product raises two questions – who’s to blame and who should pay.
The acid mine drainage crisis is going to cost someone a lot of money, but probably not the people who caused it. The “polluter pays” principle was next to impossible to apply to the acid mine drainage problem in a retrospective way, said Marius Keet, chief director for mine water management at the department of water and sanitation.

The Federation for a Sustainable Environment is proud to announce the launch of the booklet titled “Rehabilitation of Mine Contaminated Eco-Systems. A Contribution to a Just Transition to a Low Carbon Economy to Combat Unemployment and Climate Change” by Mariette Liefferink of the Federation for a Sustainable Environment (FSE). The booklet was commissioned by the Alternative Information and Development Centre (AIDC) in collaboration with the Friedrick Ebert Stiftung.

Last week, the coalition of eight civil society and community organisations that has been resisting the proposed coal mine inside a protected area and strategic water source area in Mpumalanga launched further proceedings in the Pretoria High Court.

Disclaimer: This site features articles written by journalists who have contacted the FSE for information and input. The FSE is not responsible for the content of the final published article, or the accuracy of the information contained. The articles remain the copyright of the original authors and/or publishers. If you reproduce the article you must have the permission of the original author/publisher. All images and logos are copyrighted to their respective owners.